Aisha Khan

2002 /

Crime

Aisha’s particular areas of expertise in general crime are with violent and sexual offending, she is able to deal with the most difficult and sensitive cases with ease and is known for dealing with the most challenging of cases, often with surprisingly positive results.

Notable Cases

R v HH – Murder

Leicester explosion trial, five people were killed during an explosion at a shop which was planned as part of an insurance fraud.

R v CM - Murder

Defendant was implicated by mobile phone evidence as the organiser of a drug deal with the deceased and was also forensically linked to the deceased. Both co-defendants blamed the defendant for the murder. Acquitted of both murder and manslaughter.

R v AS - Murder

The defendant stabbed the deceased twice, including one wound tract which travelled to the hilt of the 20 inch knife following an aggressive, drunken domestic dispute. Acquitted of murder, convicted of manslaughter.

R v LH - Murder

The incident was a group attack on a prone male on the ground and required frame by frame analysis of CCTV evidence as well as detailed cross examination of the pathologist regarding the causation. Acquitted of murder, convicted of manslaughter.

R v MT – Causing or allowing physical harm to a child. Child cruelty

Premature six week old baby was found to have severe skull and rib fractures, both parents were on trial. The defendant was the father of the baby and refused to hand him over for nearly an hour after emergency services arrived to treat him and was charged with an additional count of child cruelty. The case involved consideration of detailed paediatric neurological expert reports and a ‘gentle’ cut throat with the co-defendant. The defendant was acquitted of all counts and the co-defendant was found guilty.

R v IK - Kidnap, false imprisonment, blackmail and section 18 GBH

The hostage was held over three days and tortured with boiling water being poured over his body, causing third degree burns. Further degradation of the hostage took place as the defendants urinated on him and cut his arm with a knife whilst threatening to shoot him and dump his body in the woods. Sentence reduced on appeal.

R v JF - Possession of firearm with intent, Section 18 GBH

Revenge shooting of a 16 year old girl, by a group of seven male defendants. Guns and ammunition found at the scene. Acquitted of all offences.

R v OR - Section 18 GBH, possession of a firearm with intent.

This case involved an Albanian gang related feud and the shooting occurred yards from Wood Green Crown Court. Acquitted on all counts.

R v MA – Rape of a child under 13 – Huddersfield grooming trial

The defendant was aged between 14-17 when the offences occurred and had a previous conviction for similar offences in another grooming trial committed when he was aged 19. One of the complainants was 12 years old and had been raped by numerous individuals over a number of years. Submissions were made on the basis that on one view the defendant himself was used by other older men in order to entice the complainants.

The defendant had been in a relationship with the complainant whilst she was simultaneously being groomed by a number of men. The defendant was acquitted of the count relating to sexual activity with a child. Distinctions were drawn between the defendant and others to take him outside the scope of sentence for grooming offences which substantially reduced his sentence.

R v TB - Sexual offences against child under 13.

The defendant and his co-defendant lived with the complainant and her mother over a period of months and it was alleged they systematically groomed and abused her. Inconsistencies within the evidence of mother and daughter as well as a potential immigration status benefit (by use of the prosecution) were used to undermine the prosecution case. Defendant acquitted of all but one count

R v YR - Penetration of a child under 13. Sexual activity with a child under 13. Making and distributing indecent images.

The two complainants were aged 6 and 12. Detailed analysis of a vast amount of phone evidence revealed that a number of girls were being groomed by this defendant and being made to carry out sexual acts at his behest.

R V LH - Historic rape and sexual assault

Historic sexual abuse of two step-daughters, one complainant had a complicated history in relation to previous complaints which had been made to the police and social services. A vast amount of third party disclosure had to be considered in order to properly present the chronology of events. Defendant acquitted.

R v CS - Rape

13 year old defendant who had anally raped his 8 year old brother on a number of occasions. The overarching principles in relation to the sentencing of children and young people were used to ensure that the defendant did not receive a custodial sentence and that he received the help that he required to be rehabilitated.

R v MKA - Rape, controlling prostitution, trafficking.

The complainant was vulnerable and was being ‘groomed’ by a number of defendants, at one stage she was made to marry one of the defendants. Matter discontinued following defence disclosure requests which revealed material inconsistencies within the complainant’s account.

R v AI – Sexual offences including anal rape

Historical allegations of sexual abuse by schoolteacher on three members of one family. Also connected were civil proceedings where the defendant as well as the school and Catholic Diocese were being pursued. Defendant acquitted.

R v JB - Sexual assault.

Serious sexual assault involving the use of drugs to render the complainant unconscious. The evidence against the defendant came from his own account of what happened in interview. Complex issues of bad character evidence arose from previous convictions.

R v AI - Rape

Serious historic sexual abuse allegations against a former schoolmaster at a boarding school, one complainant was a serving police officer, evidence on behalf of the defence was obtained from all over the world, including by video link to Peru and Madeira. Defendant acquitted.

R v AR - Rape

Historic rape and indecent assault allegations, defendant had a previous conviction for rape which was successfully argued as inadmissible.

R v SL - Rape, sexual assault

Serious allegations of systematic sexual abuse by the defendant of his nieces, nephew and family friend, matters were further complicated by the defendant’s relevant previous convictions and the fact that he was suffering from cystic fibrosis.

R v YR - Sexual Offences

Penetration of a child under 13, sexual activity with a child under 13. Making and distributing indecent images. Junior alone.
Cross examination of 6 year old and 12 year old complainants. Detailed analysis of phone evidence which revealed that a number of girls were being groomed by this defendant and being made to carry out sexual acts.

Instructed to defend a mother accused of ‘selling’ her baby. The case was uncovered as part of a News of the World ‘sting’ operation. The case involved analysis of United Kingdom statutes and European jurisprudence in respect of the concept of ‘slavery’. Issues relating to press reporting arose in light of the nature of the allegation and indeed the fact that the child in question was born as a consequence of rape.
The defendant’s sentence was almost halved on appeal.

R v SD - Misconduct in public office.

Represented a prison officer charged with misconduct in public office. The case centered around allegations that a number of prison officers had been having sexual relationships with female inmates in exchange for offering favours, issues of breach of trust arose, especially as some of the complainants had serious mental health difficulties and were vulnerable. Acquitted following retrial

R v RHA

Fraud case involving a number of allegations relating to sham marriages as well as mortgage and insurance frauds. The case involves jurisdictional issues, allegations of murder in Pakistan and a concurrent Interpol investigation.

R v SK

Conspiracy to help an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom. The defendant was accused of facilitating the entry into the United Kingdom of Syrian nationals. Legal argument raised over the fact that a husband and wife cannot be sole conspirators.

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.